But What Can You Do? tracks where 2026 candidates stand on U.S. weapons and funding for the government of Israel. How we check

Teresa Benitez-Thompson

How this mark works

We track key votes on sending U.S. weapons and money to the government of Israel. A check means every tracked vote they cast came down against sending more, on the side of peace and de-escalation. A question mark means a mixed record: they sided with sending up to half of the time. An X means they voted to send more weapons and money in over half of their tracked votes, even as the way those weapons and dollars were being used became more and more obvious. At exactly half, money this election cycle from a lobbying group we track, or an endorsement from a group that backs sending weapons, makes it an X. Only votes actually cast are counted. Where a candidate has no recorded votes on these bills, the mark comes instead from a reviewed reading of their public record (money from the lobbying groups we track, endorsements, and their own words since January 26, 2024). There an X also covers fully backing the conduct of the war by the government of Israel without significant reservations, and a question mark also covers speaking about Israel without saying clearly where they stand on U.S. weapons and funding. A dash means No Position Found: we found nothing in their own words about Israel, Gaza or the war.

See a dash? Ask the candidate where they stand, then send us their answer and we'll review it and update the mark. Or volunteer to help review candidates.

Two reviewers, reading the public record as a whole, agree: She would phase out funding for offensive arms and condition the aid while keeping funding for Iron Dome now, which is the method's own mixed case. Reviewed by hand on 2026-10-01. This candidate has no recorded tracked floor votes.

Benitez-Thompson’s platform states “U.S. military aid to Israel should not be unconditional”, backing a phase-out of offensive-arms funding, conditioned sales, restored UNRWA funding, and a two-state pathway, while refusing AIPAC money and keeping funding for defensive systems.

✉ Copy a message to send them

The only address on file for this campaign is its compliance or filing contact, which will not answer a policy question. Copy this message and send it through their website or a public social account.

If you send this from your own email, cc replies@butwhatcanyoudo.org so we can post their answer.

Your record on weapons and funding for the government of Israel [ref: nv2-benitezthompson]

Dear Teresa Benitez-Thompson,

I plan to vote in the November elections, but before I vote for you, I want to be sure I understand your plan going forward when it comes to weapons and funding for the government of Israel, because your record is mixed.

Will you commit, if elected, to voting against further transfers of weapons and funding to the government of Israel, or to supporting enforceable conditions on that support?

Your record points in different directions, so I'm asking for clarity: where do you stand now, and what will you do?

I may share your answer publicly so other voters can see it.

Respectfully,
[Your name]

Website ↗X ↗Facebook ↗

Deep Dive

Benitez-Thompson, a former Nevada Assembly majority leader, is the Democratic nominee in Nevada’s 2nd District.

Her published platform is unusually specific and carries the card. In her own words: "My position is that U.S. military aid to Israel should not be unconditional and that Israel should not receive blank checks from the United States. This is why I support phasing out direct financial support for offensive arms sales to Israel." The same section commits to "Conditioning U.S. military aid to Israel on compliance with U.S. law and international humanitarian law", arms sales conditioned on ceasefire compliance, humanitarian aid at the scale the crisis requires including restored UNRWA funding, an end to settlement expansion or annexation in the West Bank, a two-state pathway with Palestinian-led rebuilding in Gaza, and continued "funding for defense systems like the Iron Dome so Israel can protect itself from terrorist attacks."

The platform also states she will not accept "campaign money from organizations who don’t support this change, including AIPAC." Jewish Insider reported in August 2026 her criticism that the United Nations "had the opportunity to leverage sanctions" over Gaza "but they didn’t move forward with any action", and noted her opponent’s campaign characterizes her platform as giving in to antisemitism, a partisan characterization carried on the research page.

Her antisemitism plank supports increased hate-crime grant funding and the Sacred Act’s buffer zones around places of worship.

The money

Checked the five lobbying groups we track; no direct 2026 support found

2026 support from the five lobbying groups we track

Nothing recorded (as of 2026-07-23) from the five lobbying groups we track; earlier cycles and earmarked donations not yet tracked.

Support-only OpenFEC data. Opposition independent expenditures are excluded.

In their words

“My position is that U.S. military aid to Israel should not be unconditional and that Israel should not receive blank checks from the United States. This is why I support phasing out direct financial support for offensive arms sales to Israel.”

Source ↗, 2026-08-21

Research log

The notes behind this card: what we looked at, what we found, and where each item came from.

U.S. military aid and weapons to Israel

[Position, standing platform] Her policy page, verified and quoted on the card: no unconditional aid, phase-out of offensive-arms funding, conditioned sales, defensive-systems funding kept. Recorded on the date we read it; the research notes the platform was updated June 2025.
[Reported, 2026-05-26] The Nevada Independent reported she said she would have voted for resolutions limiting U.S. aid to Israel; reported, not confirmed directly.

U.S. aid to Palestinians

[Position, standing platform] The policy page, verified: humanitarian aid at crisis scale and restored UNRWA funding.

Characterization of the conflict

[Position, standing platform] The policy page, verified: the Netanyahu government’s policies "crossed lines", settlement-expansion opposition, two-state pathway. Her platform’s Iran reference sits inside her own sentence and stays off the front.
[Statement, 2026-08-13] Jewish Insider, verified: the U.N.-sanctions criticism.

Related rhetoric and lobbying

[Position, standing platform] The AIPAC-money refusal in her own platform text, verified; The Nevada Independent’s primary coverage confirms the AIPAC-shunning pact among the Democratic field.
[Opposition attack, 2026-08-13] The Flippo campaign’s statement to Jewish Insider that she "has given into the rising anti-semitism of her own party by refusing donations from American citizens who support Israel"; JI itself notes she has said she will reject AIPAC support, "not necessarily all supporters of Israel, as suggested by the Flippo campaign". Carried as a partisan attack with JI’s correction alongside.

Safety and antisemitism

[Position, standing platform] The policy page, verified: hate-crime grant funding and the Sacred Act.

Race and status context

Democratic nominee in a Republican-leaning open seat against David Flippo, whose card carries its own record.

Also in this race

✗ David Flippo (Republican)

All Nevada candidates.